behalf of the court, LaForme J.A. rested his decision on threelinked pillars or reasons. The first is that even though a statu-tory court does not have any inherent jurisdiction, the court hasan implied power to control its own process and, as part of thatpower, a provincial court judge can award costs. The second isthat the breadth of the provincial court’s mandate under theCDSA suggests that it has an implied power to award costs.Both the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Jus-tice have jurisdiction to hear forfeiture applications under theCDSA. “Court” is not defined in the CDSA. Justice LaFormeheld that, having regard to the wording of the forfeiture provi-sions, Parliament intended that the power of the provincialcourt judge and the Superior Court judge in relation to forfeitureapplications be equal. Third, having regard to the statutorycontext, the implied power to award costs was reasonably neces-sary for the court to discharge its mandate in a fair and efficientmanner. At para. 55, LaForme J.A. stated:[I]n light of the Superior Court’s power to award costs, depriving theOntario Court of Justice of that power is undesirable. Without this power acontest would likely arise as to which court the application for forfeitureshould be brought in, depending on whether the costs issue was deemedrelevant by the Crown. A contest like this would frustrate the scheme of theforfeiture provisions and could not have been intended by Parliament.

[30] The Crown submits that Fercan is limited to the CDSA
forfeiture regime. In support of its position, the Crown points out
that in Fercan, the court held that a CDSA forfeiture proceeding
is different from routine criminal cases: Fercan, at para. 79.
A CDSA forfeiture proceeding is a stand-alone hearing and is
neither a trial nor part of sentencing. Second, the parties in
Fercan were innocent third party bystanders. An accused who is
charged but not convicted is not entitled to the same treatment
by the courts: Fercan, at para. 80. Further, the Crown notes
that Fercan does not mention Fach, a reflection of the factually
distinct context in Fercan,and an indication that Fercan was not
meant to overrule Fach. Finally, the Crown also submits that
the respondents are not without a remedy, they can bring a separate proceeding in the Superior Court for costs.

[31] The respondents submit that the implied power of a provincial court judge to control its own process is not limited to the
forfeiture regime under the CDSA. They argue that there is no
reason to limit Fercan. The respondents’ submission is that simply
by creating a hybrid offence, Parliament’s implied intention is
that both the Summary Conviction Court and the Superior Court
have the same jurisdiction to award costs and the summary conviction court must entertain the respondents’ application.